Comments on: UPDATED: Is Taslima being treated differently from MF Husain?

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:42:50 +0000

An excerpt from "India's dubious Secularists" by S Gurumurthy: Now come to Rushdie, a contrast. His life is living hell since he wrote his controversial book The Satanic Verses. Though living, he has, by now, died a million times since February 4, 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fiat (fatwa) to Muslims to kill him. But, why should Khomeini order the killing of a fellow Muslim? With almost a generation gone since 1988 when Rushdie wrote the infamous book, it is time to recall some history. Rushdie’s book was about a disputed tradition in Islam. According to it, Mohammed (depicted in Rushdie’s book as Mahound) had first added three verses (Sura) in the Quran, accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings, but later revoked the verses saying that Devil (Satan) had tempted him to utter the verses to appease the Meccans — so the title ‘Satanic Verses’ for the disputed verses. The Rushdie book set off violent reaction from Muslims. Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh blew himself up in a central London hotel while making a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed and seriously injured in the same month. And Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the target in the events that led to massacre of 37 people in July 1993. William Nygaard, a Norway publisher, was almost killed in Oslo in October 1993. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who had opposed Khomeini’s ‘Kill Rushdie’ fiat, were killed. Two bookstores in California, and five in England, were fire-bombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Mumbai. This list does not exhaust the violence. Starting from then and till now, Rushdie has been hitting headlines for the wrong reasons. Now again Rushdie is in the news. Rushdie had been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012, Asia’s largest, a week back. Muslims threatened agitations and Rushdie’s presence would have meant violence. So the Indian Intelligence Bureau invented an input saying that four hired assassins were roaming around to kill Rushdie. This was proved fake, calculated to prevent Rushdie from coming to India. The four participants who had read out from The Satanic Verses at the meet ran away from India to escape arrest. William Dalrymple, the festival director, got death threats. Finally, Rushdie’s video address to the Jaipur festival was dropped as, according to organisers, it risked the lives of the participants from the Muslim protesters outside. The contrast is self-evident. Rushdie, who just wrote about a disputed tradition in Islam, was hounded for decades and is on a death threat even now, and people who had nothing to do with either the book or Rushdie have been butchered. Even today the fear of slaughter in his name haunts the world, as the Jaipur meet shows. But, all that Husain, who, in the name of freedom hurt the Hindus — “considered as the gentlest and most civilised on the earth” according to Mahatma Gandhi — faced were normal protests. The protests by Hindus against Husain were ant-bite compared to the scale of violence against Rushdie’s book, even though the hurt to the Hindu sentiments by the perverted paintings of Husain were explicit and undeniably monumental. But what is distressingly shameful is the politics of contrast. See how the secular media, parties, leaders and state glorified Husain’s right to abuse Hindu gods and goddesses to wound Hindus and how the same secular actors repeatedly decried Rushdie’s similar right to hurt Muslims. Now something even more shameful. The ‘seculars’, including the media, had ceaselessly condemned the normal protests against shows displaying Husain’s painting and pontificated to Hindus about the need for tolerance. But they wouldn’t utter a word against the violence by Muslims nor ask them to be tolerant. The reason is obvious. They are dishonest.

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:33:02 +0000

Reproducing my response to a comment on facebook on this post.
***
Chandrashekhar: Let me take your arguments one by one.
And I request you to continue this discussion over at the blog – which is the appropriate place for such discussions – essentially because it does not make sense for me to repeat what has already been said elsewhere (e.g. here: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/11/28/taslima-treated-differently-from-mf-husain/).

With that qualifier to my arguments, here is my response to your points:
1] Re. “Did you guys feel offended and let down when M.F.Hussain was driven out of the country?” – I presume the question was directed at me. As Amit Malviya and Amit Virmani have mentioned below, the two cases are superficially similar but there are fundamental differences.
a] MF Husain was not hounded out of India; He chose not to come back and face the charges against him.
b] The government had assured him protection (unlike in the case of Salman Rushdie).
c] As Amit has noted, everything was done to facilitate his return including bundling the several cases against him in one so as to avoid any inconvenience to him + providing him security
d] There were acts of vandalism against his specific paintings, but no one threatened him personally. He continued to live in India for several years before moving to Qatar.
e] Husain’s paintings were never banned
f] There is absolutely no “religious” sanction in Hinduism (or call by any priest/Guru) to physically harm someone for utterances/work that may be “offensive”. This is unlike the case in Islam – as you well know.

2] You say that, “It is clear from the comments that we have chauvinist and hyprocrite attitude” – Pl substantiate your allegation if it is directed at me. It is easy to throw about such words (although this is not the first time I have been accused of being X or Y; e.g. see this: http://satyameva-jayate.org/2010/12/16/pro-hindu-anti-muslim/)

3] And finally, “So if Hindus do not have a religious decree to prosecute..we are better?”

Yes absolutely. We are. I am proud to belong to a belief-system that has evolved beyond such insecurities and narrow chauvinism. So yes, not having religious sanction for such acts does make Hindus better- and I am proud of it.

In any case, pl see these 2 posts on my stance re. MF Husain http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/10/husain-khajuraho-moral-policing/ and http://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/27/mf-husain-artisitic-freedoms/

I look forward to your point-by-point rebuttal on this, over here please.

As an aside, it is interesting that you have not made any comment on the central point in my post.

By: Kaffir

Kaffir — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:23:45 +0000

^ Not to mention, it was the so-called secular and liberal government of India that was the first to ban The Satanic Verses and showcased Indian secularism, which is – appeasement of Muslims. Not much has changed today. Plus ça change..vagerah vagerah.

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:18:10 +0000

From a comment by Sh Ashok-ji on the small but important differences between the situation of MF Husain and Salman Rushdie (emphasis added):
M F Husain went into a self-exile to avoid the various legal cases against him in the courts in India. The media projected this act as a threat to his life by those who opposed his depiction of Hindu gods and goddesses in erotic manner. There were acts of vandalism against his specific paintings, but no one threatened him personally. He was living in India, and moving
about, for a long time since October 1996, for more than ten years.
When he went into his self-exile, more as a drama than anything else, the government of India appealed to him to come back, stating that there is no need to fear, and that they will give him all the necessary protection.
Still he found it worth his while to live abroad in an apparently luxurious life-style. One publication showed him with a multitude of high-end luxurious cars like Ferrari.
Come to Salman Rushdie. Extremist Islamic organization threatened him if he attended the Jaipur Literary Festival of Jan 2012. What does the government do in this case? The obvious. Tell him that he should not attend the programme in view of the threats not only to him but to the others at the venue of the festival.
And there are many in the same government which projects that the so-called Hindu terrorism is a greater threat than the real Islamic terrorism.

Namaste

Ashok Chowgule

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:04:59 +0000

Excerpt from an Op-Ed in ExpressBuzz (18th Nov ’08)

…The secular establishment has let down Taslima Nasreen again.

…she has to pack her bags again because, according to her, the Centre gave her a resident permit for six months with the “secret condition” that she must leave the country at the expiry of the term.

It may not be too fanciful to link the denial of hospitality to the controversial writer to the proximity of a series of assembly polls which are to be followed after a few months by the general election.

…what is curious is that the Left, too, hasn’t demurred, apparently because it also wants to play safe, notwithstanding all its protestations about opposing retrogressive forces.